county of sacramento - california · 2008-09-25 · judges of the sacramento superior court 2004...
TRANSCRIPT
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
J U D G E S O F T H E S A C R A M E N T O S U P E R I O R C O U R T 2 0 0 4
Front Row: Hon. Jeffrey Gunther, Hon. Richard Park, Hon. Steven Rodda, Hon. Michael Virga, Presiding Judge,
Hon. James Long, Hon. Kenneth Hake, Hon. Jack Sapunor, Hon. Gail Ohanesian
Second Row: Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye, Hon. David De Alba, Hon. Jane Ure, Hon. Thomas Cecil, Hon. Shelleyanne
Chang, Hon. John Mendez, Hon. Jerilyn Borack
Third Row: Hon. Patricia Esgro, Hon. Trena Burger-Plavan, Hon. Lloyd Connelly, Hon. Judy Holzer Hersher, Hon.
Patrick Marlette, Hon. John Winn, Hon. Maryanne Gilliard
Fourth Row: Hon. Cheryl Chun Meegan, Hon. Pamela Smith-Steward, Hon. Renard Shepard, Hon. Emily Vasquez,
Hon. Russell Hom, Hon. Steve White, Hon. Brian Van Camp
Fifth Row: Hon. Greta Curtis Fall, Hon. Talmadge Jones, Hon. Gerald Bakarich, Hon. Richard Gilmour, Hon.
Kenneth Peterson, Hon. David Abbott, Hon. Robert Hight, Hon. Allen Sumner, Hon. Robert Shuman
Back Row: Hon. Roland Candee, Hon. Michael Kenny, Hon. Loren McMaster, Hon. Gary Mullen, Hon. Troy
Nunley, Hon. Peter McBrien, Hon. Timothy Frawley
Not Present: Hon. Raymond Cadei, Hon. Michael Garcia, Hon. James Henke, Hon. Charles Kobayashi, Hon. James Mize
OUR MISSION IS TO ASSURE JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND FAIRNESS FOR ALL UNDER THE LAW.
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
1
Overview from the Presiding Judge and Executive Officer .................................................................. 2
Family Law and Probate Division ....................................................................................................... 4
Criminal Division .............................................................................................................................. 6
Civil and Trial Support Division ......................................................................................................... 8
Civil Support Unit ............................................................................................................................ 8
Trial Support ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Interpreter Unit ................................................................................................................................. 9
Juvenile Division ................................................................................................................................ 11
Dependency ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Delinquency ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Carol Miller Justice Center Division ................................................................................................. 14
Traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Small Claims ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Unlawful Detainers ............................................................................................................................ 15
Court Administration ......................................................................................................................... 17
General Services Division .................................................................................................................. 17
Human Resources Office .................................................................................................................. 18
Finance Division ................................................................................................................................ 19
Management Information Systems Division ...................................................................................... 21
Customer Support Unit ..................................................................................................................... 21
Network Services Unit ...................................................................................................................... 21
Applications Development Unit ........................................................................................................ 22
Business Solutions Unit ..................................................................................................................... 22
Research and Evaluation Division ..................................................................................................... 23
Analytical Services Unit ..................................................................................................................... 23
Reengineering Unit .......................................................................................................................... 24
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
2
The past two years
have been exciting and
productive for this
court. In spite of two
consecutive years of
fiscal uncertainty, our
court was able to make
noteworthy progress
toward improving the
administration of jus-
tice throughout the
community. Our fore-
most priority has been
to provide access to
quality justice for all
users of the court. This
goal was reached in
large par t by the
court’s ability to main-
tain financial stability
despite California’s
fluctuating fiscal situ-
ation. We remain eco-
nomically strong be-
cause of continuous
monitoring and adjustment. Because of our fi-
nancial stability, this court has avoided the dras-
tic measures other courts have taken to meet
budget such as reducing public counter hours
and furloughing court employees.
Our stability can be attributed to proactive evalu-
ation and adjustment of business practices, con-
structive partnerships with outside agencies, and
the many contributions of staff.
The Reengineering
Unit has been integral
to the adjustment of
business practices
throughout the court.
In concert with the
Administrative Office
of the Courts Re-
source Allocation
Study, the Reengi-
neering unit continues
to evaluate staff
resources needed to
process cases. This
information allows
management to ascer-
tain whether vacancies
should be filled versus
simply shifting exist-
ing resources based
on workload. The
reengineering process
was highlighted in the
Judicial Council’s 2003
Year in Review. Simi-
larly, clarifying expec-
tations of employees at
all levels of the organization is underway. Duty
statements have been completed for most court
positions. These documents are necessary to
manage change in the organization.
Furthermore, cooperation between court
and county administrators has resulted in
several successful projects this year. Both enti-
ties were able to reach agreement on a memo-
randum of understanding. This is the first such
Overview From the
Presiding Judge and
Executive Officer
“Our foremost priority has been to
provide access to quality justice for all
users of the court...despite California’s
fluctuating fiscal situation.”
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
3
agreement since the onset of Trial Court Fund-
ing in 1997-1998. Additionally, the court and
county are working together to build the new
B.T. Collins Juvenile Courthouse, scheduled to
open in 2005.
Several administrative improvements have oc-
curred during this fiscal period including con-
tinuing efforts to document administrative poli-
cies and procedures (Human Resources,
Accounting, and Financial Policies and Proce-
dures). As part of that effort, the court has been
successful in working with United Public Em-
ployees Union to adopt many human resource
policies. Likewise, the court has adopted a com-
munication plan that will foster accurate, thor-
ough information sharing throughout the court.
Further, the court has developed an operational
plan that parallels that of the Judicial Council
for Fiscal Years 2003-2004 through 2005-2006.
The plan includes reviewing services provided
to self-represented litigants, improving manage-
ment of jurors, and improving dependency and
delinquency case processing.
This court is highly-regarded among state courts
and actively participates on many committees
that affect policy and direction for trial courts
statewide. Committees include California Case
Management System, Trial Court Executive
Budget Working Group, Judicial Branch
Budget Advisory Committee, Judicial Branch
Resource Allocation Working Group, and
Judicial Council Collaborative Court-County
Working Group on Enhanced Collections,
among others.
This court has been integral to the develop-
ment of the California Case Management
System. In partnership with select trial courts,
the AOC is developing case management sys-
tems for civil, small claims, and probate that will
eventually be utilized by all trial courts.
Staff and judicial officers have been remarkably
industrious during this biennial period. Eight
judges were appointed in Fiscal Year 2002-03
and three more in Fiscal Year 2003-2004. In spite
of the whirlwind of seemingly endless change,
staff has performed a fine job in providing ex-
cellent customer service.
The focus for this court in the next few years
will be to improve communications, implement
reengineering recommendations, complete im-
proved case management system endeavors, con-
clude documentation of policies and procedures
in operational and administrative areas, increase
staff development opportunities, maintain the
outstanding level of customer service, and con-
tinue to lead the state trial courts in productiv-
ity and creativity. The accomplishments of this
court over Fiscal Years 2002-03 and 2003-04
are extraordinary, and our aspirations for the up-
coming years are equally exceptional. Congratu-
lations to staff and judicial officers alike on up-
holding our court’s tradition as one of the finest
in the state.
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
4
The Family Law and
Probate Division is
located at the William
R. Ridgeway Family
Relations Courthouse
(WRRFRC) and in-
cludes the following
units: Family Law,
Family Court Services,
Family Law Facilitator’s
Office and Probate.
During this fiscal pe-
riod, Family Law and
Probate Units have fo-
cused on three pri-
mary areas: 1) process
improvement through re-engineering; 2) increas-
ing access and quality of services to pro per liti-
gants; and 3) maximizing community partnerships.
Overall, filings and dispositions remained fairly
stable over the past two fiscal periods. Between
dissolution, legal separation, and nullity cases,
total family law filings for Fiscal Year 2003-04
have remained practi-
cally unchanged over
Fiscal Year 2002-03 at
6,699 and 6,691, re-
spectively. Disposi-
tions declined from
5,891 in Fiscal Year
2002-03 to 4,905 in
Fiscal Year 2003-04.
Paternity cases were
relatively stable with
government paternity
cases increasing and
private paternity cases
decreasing at about
the same rate (see
Figure 2). Complaints declined 11 percent and
petitions increased five percent from the previ-
ous Fiscal Year (see Figure 3). Probate filings in-
creased five percent whereas dispositions increased
11 percent from Fiscal Year 2002-03 to 2003-04
(see Figure 4).
With the assistance of reengineering, staff has been
Family Law and Probate
“[The] Collaborative Tri-Court
Committee...continues to improve
the delivery of court related
services to families...”
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
5
able to streamline processes, increase efficiencies,
and improve customer service. In order to better
serve the high volume of customers, a new family
law department was added. Consequently, probate
matters are now heard in three departments rather
than the previous one. The Pro Bono Mediation
Program, which includes private mediators who
volunteer three days a week, has been integral in
processing the large volume of pro bono custom-
ers. In addition to the Pro Bono Mediation group,
the Family Law Custody Sub-Committee assists
the court in developing and sponsoring training
programs on state and local issues regarding child
custody and visitation.
The Family Law and Probate Division continues
to work with community groups including;
WEAVE, Kids Turn, Department of Health and
Human Services, Department of Child Support,
California State University of Sacramento, National
University, and the local Bar Association to coor-
dinate services and educate the public on family
related matters. Likewise, the collaborative Tri-
Court Committee comprised of judicial officers
and staff from Family Law, Probate and Juvenile
Courts, and representatives from County Coun-
sel, Department of Health and Human Services,
and Probation, continues to improve the delivery
of court-related services to families by coordinat-
ing processes, procedures, and information.
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
6
The Criminal Division
consists of the follow-
ing units: Criminal
Support, Exhibits/
Records Retention,
and Pre-Trial Services.
Criminal cases are
handled in the Gordon
D. Schaber Courthouse
and the Lorenzo Patino
Hall of Justice. Felony
filings in Fiscal Year
2003-04 (12,561) in-
creased three percent
compared to 2002-03
(12,160). Felony dispo-
sitions increased one
percent over the previ-
ous fiscal period from 11,906 to 12,117. Misde-
meanor disposition data is currently ununavailable1 .
A primary goal for the Criminal Division has been
updating practices and procedures in the support
areas; therefore,
reengineering com-
menced in the Crimi-
nal Support Unit, home
courts, and misde-
meanor calendar courts.
As a result, case process-
ing has been extensively
documented and stud-
ied, and preliminary rec-
ommendations have
been discussed. Recom-
mendations to change
the types of cases and
hearings assigned to
home courts have re-
sulted in dialogue with agencies involved in case
adjudication. Other changes include moving drug
court from the Lorenzo Patino Hall of Justice to
the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse and imple-
menting a pilot project to eliminate unnecessary
trial setting conferences in home courts.
In addition, the new California Case Management
System Project (V2) for criminal and traffic cases
commenced. As part of that project, justice part-
ners have discussed potential obstacles the court
and related agencies may face when the court even-
tually withdraws from the current shared criminal
Criminal Division
“The Criminal Division continues
to improve case processing and
communications while meeting
ever-changing statutory mandates and
managing ongoing workload.”
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
7
database. Furthermore, the Criminal Division
continues to respond to case law and legislative
changes. For example, during the past Fiscal Year
case law effecting Penal Code 1203.4 filings re-
sulted in new procedures and calendar modifica-
tions. In addition legislative changes have resulted
in acceptance of out-of-county Proposition 36
cases. The Criminal Division continues to im-
prove case processing and communications while
meeting ever-changing statutory mandates and
managing ongoing workload.
1 A portion of misdemeanor caseload (criminal or traffic misde-
meanors included as part of a felony filing) is tracked in the Traf-
fic Case Management System (ICMS), and at this time misde-
meanor and traffic statistics cannot be extracted. Therefore, no
such statistics are available.
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
8
The Civil and Trial
Support Division con-
sists of the following
units: Civil Support,
Electronic Recording,
Court Attendants, In-
terpreters, Court Re-
porters, and Appeals.
Civil support consists
primarily of the clerical
staff that process civil
cases. Division workload
is reflected mainly by
civil filings and disposi-
tions. Civil cases are
handled in the Gordon
D. Schaber Courthouse,
the Erickson Building,
and the nearby offices at
800 9th Street.
Civil filings and dispo-
sitions have remained fairly stable over the past
two Fiscal Years (see Figure 6) and therefore
workload remains stable. Trial Support is made
up of all the other
units (Electronic Re-
cording, Court Atten-
dants, Interpreters,
Court Reporters, and
Appeals). The division
has undergone several
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l
changes over the past
Fiscal Year. The Civil
Support Unit was im-
pacted by new rules
governing the pro-
cessing of cases;
whereas, Trial Sup-
port Units have been
impacted by major
restructuring of units and supervisors resulting
in a more level distribution of workload.
Civil Support UnitCivil Support UnitCivil Support UnitCivil Support UnitCivil Support Unit
The Civil Case Management Program (CMP)
rules, adopted in December 2001, mandated that
each Court adopt a case management and cal-
endar system for general civil cases in order to
meet the requirements of Section 2, of the Cali-
fornia Standards of Judicial Administration. The
program was implemented in 2003 for new cases.
Because the new program rules affect such a
Civil & Trial Support“Trial Support Units have been
impacted by major restructuring of
units and supervisors resulting in a more
level distribution of workload.”
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
9
large number of cases, it has had a tremendous
impact on the division, judicial officers, court
staff, counsel, and parties. Also under Local Rule
11.00, pre-case management Accelerated Civil
Trial (ACT) cases will be converting to the Case
Management Program in early FY 2004/2005
Impacting approximately 6,500 affected cases.
The Civil Support Unit also completed the Civil
Support Review Project and implemented a new
mechanism to track incoming work. Now the unit
is able to capture all critical workload indicators -
including incoming and production – both weekly
and monthly. This tool enables the unit to process
its work more efficiently and expeditiously. These
efficiencies have been particularly important as the
unit responds to staffing reductions implemented
over the past Fiscal Year.
Trial SupportTrial SupportTrial SupportTrial SupportTrial Support
Several structural changes have occurred within
the Trial Support Unit. The Law and Motion
Departments were re-organized under the Mas-
ter Calendar Unit, Electronic Recording moved
under the Court Reporter Supervisor and the
Court Attendant Unit moved under the Court-
room Clerk Supervisors. Court Attendant du-
ties in many cases overlap with Courtroom
Clerks and therefore the centralization of these
resources are logical. In addition, the Appeals
Unit revised all manuals and commenced sys-
tematic improvement of all processes, procedures,
tasks, and forms associated with the processing
of appeals.
Interpreter UnitInterpreter UnitInterpreter UnitInterpreter UnitInterpreter Unit
The Interpreter Unit was significantly impacted
by SB371 which took effect January 1, 2003.
The bill established the Trial Court Interpreter
Employment and Labor Relations Act setting
for th provisions governing employment
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
10
and compensation of trial court interpreters, in-
cluding pro tempore court interpreters. The law
specifically limits the use of independent con-
tract interpreters that are certified or registered
to 100 days in a calendar year.
The greatest challenge in implementing the bill
has been the limits regarding the use of inde-
pendent contractors (i.e.: cannot exceed 100 days
of usage in a calendar year). Because of the high
demand for court pro tempore interpreters in
the Sacramento region, the 100-day limit was
reached by some interpreters several months be-
fore the end of the calendar year. The legislation
has constrained the court in dealing with the
chronic shortage of interpreters. If no interpreter
is available, the court, although rare, must dis-
miss a criminal case. Therefore, extensive efforts
have been made to expand the pool of available
interpreters by continuous advertising, sponsored
career fairs, and communication with commu-
nity leaders to recruit interpreters.
Staff has worked with the AOC and Coopera-
tive Services to provide certification/registra-
tion exams, has sought support from other Cali-
fornia trial courts in identifying interpreter em-
ployees who are willing to travel to Sacramento,
and has installed telephone conference equip-
ment in numerous Departments (2, 3, 4, 8, 43,
60, 61, 62, and 63). The latter change allows in-
terpretation services to be provided by certified
interpreter employees of other trial courts. Fur-
thermore, a number of policies and procedures
have been developed to better manage inter-
preter resources and to assist judicial officers in
the appointment of interpreters.
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
11
The Juvenile Division
consists of two units:
Dependency and De-
linquency. Depen-
dency cases are pro-
cessed at the William
R. Ridgeway Family
Relations Court-
house; whereas, De-
linquency cases are
heard at the B.T.
Collins Juvenile Jus-
tice Center.
DependencyDependencyDependencyDependencyDependency
Original petition
filings increased mar-
ginally from 1,200 in Fiscal Year 2002-03 to
1,288 in 2003-04. Dispositions increased from
977 to 1,075 from Fiscal Year 2002-03 to 2003-
04. Subsequent petitions2 have dropped from
29 to 21 during the same period. Dispositions
of subsequent petitions dropped steeply from
206 to 131. Many important projects were
implemented and collaborations furthered in the
Dependency Unit during Fiscal Years 2002-03
and 2003-04. (See Figure 8)
Beginning in FY 2002-03, the Reengineering
Unit focused on Dependency. Reengineering
staff worked with operations and Management
Information Systems (MIS) to identify process
improvements that would eliminate redundan-
cies, enhances communication between
stakeholders, and increase the use of
automation. The final
report, approved in
January 2004, docu-
mented processes and
related workload re-
quirements, identified
opportunities for im-
provement, and devel-
oped recommenda-
tions. Dependency staff
has worked since that
time to implement the
recommendations.
One recommendation
which had an imme-
diate impact on opera-
tions was automation of the certificate of mail-
ing process. Prior to automating this function,
countless hours were spent manually typing names
and addresses for the multitude of required
mailings. The manual process resulted in extensive
backlogs. The new automated process reduced
the backlog and eliminated staff hours related to
the manual process.
Juvenile Division
“Since 1999, the Court and County have
been planning the new courthouse and
construction is well underway. ”
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
12
An important element in many of the recom-
mendations was modification of the existing
Juvenile Automation System (JAS). As such, in
the last quarter of FY 2003-04, the Dependency
Court with help from MIS, kicked off the “En-
terprise Project.” The project will examine, re-
fine and improve business processes through au-
tomation. Implementation of the Enterprise
Project is planned for July 2005.
Another focal point for the Dependency Court
during this fiscal period was maintenance of De-
pendency Drug Court. Dependency Court,
Child Protective Services, Alcohol and Drug
Services, Sacramento Child Advocates, Inc.
(SCA), Parents Advocates of Sacramento (PAS),
Dependency Associates of Sacramento (DAS),
Bridges, STARS (Specialized Treatment and Re-
covery Services) Program, and Sacramento treat-
ment providers operate this specialized court.
The court serves parents with substance abuse
problems who hope to reunify with their chil-
dren. The program has been a tremendous suc-
cess as parents in the program have been shown
to reunify more often and sooner than parents
in a comparison group; making our Dependency
Drug Court a model throughout the state and
across the nation.
DelinquencyDelinquencyDelinquencyDelinquencyDelinquency
Juvenile Delinquency filings (original) rose from
2,960 to 3,568 or approximately 21% from Fis-
cal Year 2002-03 to 2003-04. Dispositions for
original filings increased from 3,371 to 3,457
over the same period. Subsequent petition fil-
ings dropped marginally from 1,174 to 1,126
from Fiscal Year 2002-03 to 2003-04. Likewise,
subsequent petition dispositions dropped from
1,381 to 1,146 during the same period. (Figure 9)
As with Dependency, the Reengineering Unit
reviewed and documented business processes and
resulting workload requirements. Opportunities
for improvement were identified and recom-
mendations developed in the final report released
January 2004. One of the recommendations from
the report involved the utilization of an elec-
tronic data exchange between the Court and
criminal justice partners. Like Dependency, De-
linquency is involved in the Enterprise Project
which will work toward establishing such an ex-
change; therefore, Delinquency staff have been
working with MIS staff to define business and
system needs with the goal of developing an
improved case management system.
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
13
Another major project spanning the last several
years has been the Juvenile Delinquency Court’s
involvement in planning for a Delinquency Drug
Court. A working group comprised of repre-
sentatives from the Juvenile Court, Probation,
District Attorney, Public Defender, Sacramento
County Office of Education, and Sacramento
County Departments of Alcohol and Drug and
Mental Health, visited other counties’ programs
and attended trainings and conferences regard-
ing implementation of a Delinquency Drug
Court. Initially, it was hoped that a federal grant
would fund the Delinquency Drug Court, how-
ever, when the federal grant was awarded in
February 2004, it was not sufficient to fund the
program as initially designed. Therefore, the
original plan was scaled down and continues to
be refined so that it may be implemented utiliz-
ing existing resources. A Delinquency Drug
Court Pilot is slated to begin in December 2004,
to demonstrate to potential grant financiers the
benefits of a Juvenile Delinquency Drug Court
in Sacramento County.
The Sacramento Juvenile Court has also led a
project with ten surrounding counties to estab-
lish a Transfer In/Out protocol to assist with
the timely transfer process of both dependents
and minors between jurisdictions. This project
originated in September 2003, after a “summit”
was held with the participating counties. After
the summit, the Sacramento Juvenile Court
(both Delinquency and Dependency Courts)
created a draft protocol modeled after the suc-
cessful Transfer In/Out Protocol between Placer
and Sacramento Counties instituted in 2002. The
next step is to bring the surrounding counties
together to review the protocol and adopt it for
use by Sacramento County and surrounding
communities.
Perhaps the project having the greatest potential
impact on the Juvenile Delinquency Court is the
construction of the new juvenile courthouse. Since
1999, the Court and County have been planning
the new courthouse and construction is well un-
derway. With the courthouse taking shape, Juve-
nile Court Judicial Officers and staff participated
in many tasks including the selection of three art
pieces for the new facility. Completion of the fa-
cility is scheduled for Winter 2005, with a move-
in date for juvenile court in late Spring 2005. The
facility will open with six courtrooms and the ca-
pacity to expand to eight.
2 Petitions filed by DHHS after the original petition has beensustained based on new facts or circumstances pursuant to Wel-fare and Institutions Code Section 300.
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
14
The Carol Miller Jus-
tice Center Division
(CMJC) includes the
Traffic, Small Claims,
and Unlawful De-
tainer sections. The
majority of cases are
handled at CMJC;
however, juvenile
non-traffic and misde-
meanor cases are heard
at the B.T. Collins Ju-
venile Justice Center
and DUI’s are heard at
the Gordon D. Schaber
Courthouse.
TrafficTrafficTrafficTrafficTraffic
Traffic has experienced an increase in filings of
more than 8% from Fiscal Year 2002-03 to Fiscal
Year 2003-04. Disposition data are not currently
available due to reporting deficiencies in the traf-
fic cases management system (ICMS). In FY 03-
04, the infraction arraignment calendar process was
modified so that defendants check-in at a desig-
nated window in the Room 100 Lobby and then
proceed to the courtroom for hearing. This new
process has resulted in more efficient courtroom
processing, improved customer service and redi-
rection of staff to other tasks.
During Fiscal Year 2003-04 the Traffic Unit
Carol Miller Justice Center
“Approximately 10,000 cases were
processed via trial by declaration which
resulted in over four million dollars being
referred to the Department of Revenue
Recovery (DRR) for collection. ”
participated in a Pro-
cess Improvement
Study. There were sev-
eral resulting recom-
mendations including
standard phone scripts,
correspondence tem-
plates, development of
a call center, and re-
alignment of re-
sources. Implementa-
tion of these recom-
mendations provides
more uniform and
consistent information
to the public. Stream-
lining processes and
reallocating resources virtually eliminated criti-
cal backlogs. In addition, an on-line Traffic Cus-
tomer Service Mailbox was added to the Court’s
website in FY 03-04 so that customers may E-
mail questions to traffic staff.
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
15
Two traffic projects can be credited for improved
collection of overdue fines. The first project ad-
dressed the backlog of unpaid civil assessment
cases. Approximately 10,000 cases were processed
via trial by declaration which resulted in over
four million dollars being referred to the De-
partment of Revenue Recovery (DRR) for col-
lection. The second project targeted failures to
pay. These cases are now sent to a contract col-
lection agency resulting in increased revenues.
Small ClaimsSmall ClaimsSmall ClaimsSmall ClaimsSmall Claims
Small Claims filings decreased slightly from Fis-
cal Year 2002-03 to 2003-04. Filings went from
10,923 to 10,321 and dispositions from 9,797
to 8,795. In Fiscal Year 2003-04, the Small Claims
unit underwent a process improvement study
resulting in streamlined processes and procedures
and improved workload allocation standards. This
effort allowed the unit to reduce staffing by al-
most 50 percent.
The on-site Small Claims Advisory Clinic as-
sisted 23,914 customers during Fiscal Year 2002-
03 and 23,837 during Fiscal Year 2003-04. Ser-
vices are provided for walk-in, telephone, and
mail inquiries. Mediators with the Small Claims
Mediation Program, who provide pre-trial and
day-of-trial services to litigants in contested and
pro per cases, facilitated 3,080 cases over the past
two years.
Unlawful DetainersUnlawful DetainersUnlawful DetainersUnlawful DetainersUnlawful Detainers
Unlawful Detainer (UD) filings increased slightly
from Fiscal Year 2002-03 to Fiscal Year 2003-04.
Filings went from 8,883 to 9,345 and disposi-
tions went from 6,639 to 9,660. This fluctua-
tion was captured by the Open Court System,
implemented in April 2003, which has the
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
16
capability of accurately reporting filings and dis-
positions. Similarly, there were slight increases
at the on-site UD Advisory Clinic which pro-
vides legal assistance to pro se litigants on a walk-
in basis. During FY 02-03, the clinic responded
to 12,739 public contacts (52 per day average).
The FY 03-04 totals decreased slightly to 11,731
(48.5 contacts per day average). Additionally, the
Unlawful Detainer Mediation program,
which offers pre-trial and day-of-trial services
to litigants in contested and pro se matters, as-
sisted more than 500 cases during the span of
Fiscal Years 02-03 and 03-04.
Further, UD implemented the Open Court
System (OCS), a paperless case management
system, in April 2003. The OCS system allows
document imaging and viewing by judicial of-
ficers, staff and public. The system eliminates un-
productive staff hours spent searching for lost
files and documents and speeds the preparation
and mailing of dispositions (within two days of
judicial decision).
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
17
General ServicesGeneral ServicesGeneral ServicesGeneral ServicesGeneral Services
General Services in-
cludes the Facilities,
Purchasing and Busi-
ness Services Center
Units. The Facilities
Unit provides facili-
ties-related support
services throughout
the court including:
building maintenance,
trouble calls, and other
facilities requests for
11 court facilities and
more than 800 judi-
cial officers and staff.
Facilities is responsible for financial management
and oversight of court construction funding,
budget and expenditure tracking, coordination
of all court contract janitorial services, and mov-
ing all staff and judicial officers. In addition, the
Facilities Unit coordinates all court telephone
services, manages assets, monitors the court secu-
rity budget, tracks and reports energy conserva-
tion efforts and coordinates emergency actions.
The Purchasing Unit provides purchasing and
contracting support services including
development and execution of contracts and
purchase agreements and technical expertise in
reviewing Memoranda of Understanding and
other Agreements between the Court and other
parties. The Business Services Center Unit provides
services such as: mail
services (including
U.S. mail and express
mail services); copying,
printing, binding; main-
taining the internal
telephone directory, co-
ordinating updates for
external telephone di-
rectories, and coordi-
nating use of the State
Vehicle Program.
Some of the unit ac-
complishments during
FY 2003-04 include
completion of a $1.5 million upgrade of the
Downtown Courthouse Security System, upgrade
of the main courthouse inmate elevator and emer-
gency generator, completion of the Court Facili-
ties Master Plan, conversion of janitorial services
from county to commercial vendor, and signifi-
cant progress on the new Juvenile Courthouse
Project. Also, the division is responsible for con-
version of telephones to a new county switch and
major upgrade to digital phones.
Court Administration“Facilities Unit provides support
throughout the court including...11 court
facilities and more than 800 judicial
officers and staff.
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
18
Human ResourcesHuman ResourcesHuman ResourcesHuman ResourcesHuman Resources
The Human Re-
sources (HR Office)
provides a full range of
personnel and labor
relations services to
court staff as well as
providing court em-
ployment information
to the public. The of-
fice is responsible for
recruitment, testing,
job classification, salary
administration, perfor-
mance management, labor relations, various dis-
ability management programs, harassment inves-
tigations, discrimination, workplace violence,
training, employee development, and mainte-
nance of personnel and medical records. The
division reports to the Chief Deputy Executive
Officer and is staffed with nine employees.
During Fiscal Year 2002-2003, the HR Office
conducted a complete review of all classifica-
tions used by the Court to ensure compliance
with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), even-
tually moving a number of classifications to the
appropriate status. The HR Office developed
improved ergonomic standards for court em-
ployees in anticipation of transferring the work-
ers’ compensation program from county to court.
Upon closing the
South Sacramento
Courts, the HR Office
assisted in the place-
ment of all effected
employees to other fa-
cilities. In addition, the
office assisted with
transitioning employ-
ees displaced by the
closure of the Micro-
fiche Project at
the Records Reten-
tion Center with no
resulting layoffs.
Human Resources enhanced its webpage to
include information on job openings, on-line
job application forms, more accessible proce-
dures and forms, as well as information on up-
coming training opportunities. The HR Office
also coordinated the development and presen-
tation of workplace violence training for all
Court employees.
In Fiscal Year 2003-04, the HR Office was inte-
gral to negotiating a labor agreement affecting
the majority of Court employees. In addition,
the HR Office coordinated the development of
procedure manuals and training guides for civil
and criminal courtroom clerks and provided
training to downtown staff as well as new clerks.
“Developed improved ergonomic stan-
dards for court employees in anticipation
of transferring the workers’ compensa-
tion program from county to court”.
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
19
The manuals and training guides will eventu-
ally be used as part of a proposed Courtroom
Clerk Academy.
Human Resources also managed the transition
of the Court’s workers’ compensation program
from Sacramento County to the new Judicial
Council program. The Human Resources
Office trained managers and supervisors on the
preparation of duty statements and coordinated
the development of duty statements for all
Court employees.
FinanceFinanceFinanceFinanceFinance
The Finance Division includes the Accounting,
Audit, Budget, and Payroll Units. The Division
strives to protect the integrity of the public
monies both appropriated and collected, through
strong financial policies, procedures, and the uti-
lization of competent, skilled staff. The Divi-
sion provides fiscal leadership to the court, work-
ing to secure adequate resources, developing and
monitoring various budgets, processing and re-
cording financial transactions, developing re-
quired financial reports, and reviewing court fi-
nancial documents to assure the integrity and
validity of the data presented. Additionally, the
Division provides benefits and payroll services
to court staff.
The Accounting Unit provides the recording of
daily expenditures throughout the year, processes
installment payments to collect fines and fees
for court tracking of various court related ac-
tivities that require reimbursement or have mon-
etary thresholds, provides a proper safeguarding
of monies entrusted to the court, deposits monies
collected by the operations units in the three
courthouse locations, provides invoice process-
ing, and maintains the tracking and processing
of posted bonds.
The Audit Unit reviews court procedures, par-
ticularly financial procedures, to assess that ad-
equate internal controls exist to ensure assets
and data of the court are safeguarded, provides
financial expertise by developing simple and fair
financial procedures which adhere to the re-
spected governing authority, provides assurance
of the integrity of recorded financial informa-
tion and reports, and reviews court processes
for potential efficiency and economy changes.
The Budget Unit develops and administers multi-
year state and local budgets with various fund-
ing sources totaling more than $90 million per
year, prepares comprehensive reports for
the distribution of collections and revenues, re-
sponds to an array of fiscal-related drills from
the AOC throughout the year; provides budget
related information and assistance to judges, staff,
and the public; and, forecasts, monitors and
reports on expenditures and revenues for the
various budgets.
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
20
The Payroll Unit processes the court payroll in-
cluding maintaining the employee master file,
data entering actual work hours, distributing
paychecks, coordinating employee insurance
benefits, and implementing the Wellness/Health
program for the court, in coordination with
collective bargaining representatives.
The Finance Division has also been involved
with several major projects during Fiscal Years
2002-03 and 2003-04 years. Staff collaborated
with AOC Auditors in the review of the Court’s
Financial Policies and Procedures, identifying
areas/practices within the Court warranting
analysis and/or change. Staff assisted in the de-
velopment, implementation, and training of the
Court Position Control (CPC) application
which provides for the monitoring of person-
nel resources and enhances management’s abil-
ity to make informed personnel decisions. The
division implemented the “Time Track” system,
a county-operated electronic time sheet program
used by most court staff. Various division staff
assisted in the annual preparation and submis-
sion of the required Comprehensive Annual Fi-
nancial Report (CAFR) which reconciles the
accrual system of fund balance sheets in accor-
dance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP). Staff also worked on the de-
velopment and finalization of both initial and
subsequent year Court-County Memorandum
of Understanding documents regarding services
provided to the court by the county. Division
staff continues to participate on the statewide
team responsible for development of account-
ing requirements for the California Case Manag
ement System (CCMS).
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
21
ManagementManagementManagementManagementManagementInformationInformationInformationInformationInformationSystemsSystemsSystemsSystemsSystems
Management Infor-
mation Systems (MIS)
consists of the follow-
ing units: Customer
Support, Network
Services, Applications
Development, and
Business Solutions.
Customer Support in-
cludes the help desk
and computer training
staff. Network Ser-
vices staff support the
network, servers,
email, and internet in-
frastructure. Applications Development staff sup-
port the court’s custom computer programs.
Business Solutions staff act as project managers
that work directly with operations’ staff on tech-
nology solutions to improve the efficiency and ef-
fectiveness of the Court.
The Customer Support Unit (CSU) handled over
5,300 help desk calls including judicial moves, new
and existing equipment moves and installs, and
equipment repairs. In addition, the unit imple-
mented new procedures for responding to emer-
gency courtroom outages, participated in the plan-
ning and testing for the court-wide upgrade to
Windows XP and Of-
fice 2003, upgraded all
laptop computers to
Windows XP, and
upgraded six judicial
software packages. The
Customer Support
Unit also worked with
the Facilities unit
to implement helpdesk
software for facilities
issues. The unit played
a role in almost every
deployment initiated
by Network Services
or Application Devel-
opment.
Network Services (NW) was responsible for relo-
cating the computer room from the Main
Courthouse to the OCIT building necessitat-
ing movement of 24 servers. This unit increased
the number of servers in the lab in order to
provide a more robust testing environment - es-
pecially important to the upgrade to Windows
XP. The Network Services Unit separated the
Court from the County Network and estab-
lished an independent network (LAN/WAN)
for the Court. This included: replacing and
readdressing all network equipment, adding
additional equipment, implementing new
“Business Solutions staff act as project
managers that work directly with
operations’ staff on technology solutions
to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the Court”
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
22
monitoring and security tools, establishing
a court connection to the internet, and
replacing all backup power supplies for the
network switches.
The unit also replaced eight servers as part of
the annual server replacement project. Network
Services upgraded the Mail Server software from
Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2003 and upgraded
most of the court servers from Windows 2000
to Windows 2003. Further, NW implemented
technology to allow outside agencies to access
court applications, specifically ICMS and JAS.
Applications Development (AD) has worked with
operations on numerous projects. For example,
AD worked with the following units: Traffic and
Accounting units to develop an automated in-
terface with GC Services (a third party collec-
tion agency); Unlawful Detainer Unit and AOC
on an interoperability project for the Second
Generation e-Filing Standards; Civil and the new
Civil Case Management Procedures nd imple-
mentation of a new application to automatically
upload filings from the California Employment
Development Department; and Juvenile Depen-
dency to automate certificates of mailing. Work-
ing with Accounting, AD replaced all outdated
cashiering equipment. The unit also assisted Le-
gal Research by implementing the ability to
image and retrieve documents and Human
Resources by developing the Court Position
Control application.
The Business Solutions Unit (or project manag-
ers) led most of the MIS projects. In addition
to all the projects listed in the units above, the
project managers (PMs) participated in various
other activities. The project managers act as liai-
sons between MIS and operational units par-
ticipating in various meetings in the operational
areas and advising on automation issues. In ad-
dition to participating in various reengineering
efforts, PMs participated in the California Case
Management System (CCMS) V3 vendor se-
lection process and on the CCMS V2 and V3
project teams.
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
23
ResearchResearchResearchResearchResearchand Evaluationand Evaluationand Evaluationand Evaluationand Evaluation
Research and Evalua-
tion consists of two
units: Analytical Ser-
vices and Reengi-
neering. The division
performs unbiased
planning, analysis, and
research regarding
court policies, pro-
grams, and operations.
The Analytical Services
Unit (formerly called
Planning and Opera-
tional Support) pro-
vides support to court
executives, managers,
and staff . The unit
monitors new legislation and changes to rules
of court looking for potential impact upon court
operations. Analysts prepare and distribute
monthly workload and filing statistics to the
Judicial Council, write grants, manage and fa-
cilitate projects, develop policies and procedures,
support judicial committees and other analyti-
cal services as required. The Analytical Services
Unit is also responsible for coordinating and staff-
ing community outreach efforts on behalf of
the court.
For the Criminal Division, analysts developed
the Court Appointed Expert Certification Policy,
SOC Warrants Procedure, 1203.4 PC Procedure,
Ability of Indigent De-
fendants to Pay Survey,
Intermediate Punish-
ments Comprehensive
Annual Report,
Cr iminal Workload
Report (Prop 21), and
AOC Prisoner Cost
Survey (4750 PC). At
the Carol Miller Justice
Center, analysts helped
the Traffic Division by
assisting with the
award-winning Youth-
ful Visitation Program
as well as participating
in FileNet develop-
ment to implement
Panagon Document
Management (Imag-
ing) for the Open Court System.
Civil and Trial Support received help from Ana-
lytical Services staff who researched and/or re-
solved several issues related to sanctions in civil
cases and developed the Usage Data for Con-
tract Per Diem Interpreters Survey (per SB371),
the Jury Service Exit Survey, and the Customer
Service Survey for front counters. Staff assisted
Family Law, Probate, Delinquency and Depen-
dency in implementing reengineering recom-
mendations, tracking implementation progress,
and providing fiscal and operational assistance.
In addition, staff conducted and evaluated a pi-
“Analysts prepare and distribute
monthly workload and filing statistics
to the Judicial Council, write
grants, manage and facilitate projects,
develop policies and procedures, sup-
port judicial committees and other
analytical services”
S U P E R I O R C O U R T O F C A L I F O R N I A
24
lot project aimed at gathering details of Family
Court Services cases and mediation events. Unit
staff assisted Probate with SUSTAIN software
by developing new reports, notices, time stan-
dards, as well as providing training.
Furthermore, the Analytical Services Unit
developed a comprehensive court-wide forms
inventory, completed an in-depth study and re-
port regarding the courtroom clerk classifica-
tion, developed several human resource policies
(Real Time, Bilingual Pay, Catastrophic Leave,
Pepper Spray, and Commissioner/Referee Va-
cation policies) and published the Court-wide
Annual Report.
Staff conducted training for community-based
organizations cover ing Traffic, Unlawful
Detainers, Small Claims, Family Law, Probate
and Juvenile Dependency and developed four
“How it Works” brochures in Family Law, Traf-
fic, Unlawful Detainer, and Small Claims (avail-
able in seven languages). Staff also developed the
Judicial Community Outreach Program as well
as compiled a Legal Services Referral Listing
which is posted on the Internet site. Further-
more, staff established the Community Leaders’
Forum in September 2003 to continue the dia-
logue between the court and community.
The Reengineering Unit was created in August
2002 and is responsible for the court’s
Reengineering and Process Improvement
Program (program). This program involves the
periodic and structured review and evaluation
of all court processes for efficiency
and effectiveness while still maintaining or
expanding customer service. The court’s
reengineering program was highlighted in Ju-
dicial Council’s 2003 Year in Review and is be-
ing replicated by other courts in the State of
California. In the past two years the
Reengineering Unit has completed formal re-
views of Family Law, Probate, Unlawful
Detainers, and Juvenile Dependency and De-
linquency. Smaller-scale projects have also been
completed in Civil, Traffic, and Small Claims.
The successes of many of these efforts are noted
in the operation-specific areas of the Biennial
Report. The review of criminal court opera-
tions, including examining criminal calendar
configurations, criminal operations, coordination
of courtroom resources, and the Master Calen-
dar Unit was initiated in May 2004 and is ex-
pected to be complete in 2005. These efforts
have helped to define and streamline current
processes wherever possible, support more ef-
fective use of existing resources, and recommend
long term changes in technology. These projects
have been successful due to the support and co-
operation of the impacted operating units.
Reengineering analysts also responded to a staff-
ing study prepared by the Administrative Office
of the Courts. Unit analysts documented in great
detail the processes and time needed to com-
plete various tasks in civil, small claims, traffic,
appeals, records, law and motion, and other
areas within the court. This work was done to
both assist court executives in assessing the impact
of any changes recommended by the AOC study
and to create a foundation for assessing resource
needs by operating area.
C O U N T Y O F S A C R A M E N T O
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSMany thanks go to the individuals who assisted with the biennial report through
contribution, editing, presentation, and design.
Presiding Judge: Michael G. Virga
Executive Officer: Jody Patel Chief Deputy: Curt Soderlund
Editing: Jake Chatters, Lori Perras-Prizmich
Contributors: Pam Reynolds, Maureen Ashby, Kim Pedersen, Maureen Dumas, Meredith Bostian
Jeri Johnson, Jake Chatters, Doug Kauffroath, Chuck Robuck, Rick Beard, John Campbell
Photography: Gerald Root
Statistics: Ted Ternes
Project Manager: Lori Perras-Prizmich
Design and Presentation: KM Design Group